USC Newshttps://news.usc.edu
University of Southern California NewsTue, 18 Dec 2018 22:23:28 +0000en-ushourly1https://news.usc.edu/wp-content/themes/news-tfm-2018/images/usc-logo-feed.pngUSC Newshttp://news.usc.edu
https://wordpress.org/?v=4.9.8Youngest voters more discouraged by today’s political climate than other voters, poll findshttps://news.usc.edu/150731/millennial-voters-most-discouraged-by-todays-political-climate/
https://news.usc.edu/150731/millennial-voters-most-discouraged-by-todays-political-climate/#respondThu, 25 Oct 2018 15:00:46 +0000USC Newshttps://news.usc.edu/?p=150731
The big questions: How will that disappointment affect how they vote Nov. 6 -- and will they bother to vote at all?
What effect will the contentious political environment have on the millennial vote?

In a USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll of 5,044 adults conducted this summer, voters under the age of 35 were the least likely to feel positive emotions such as satisfied, hopeful or pleased about news emanating from Washington, D.C. They were also the most likely to report negative feelings.

In a news environment that includes President Donald Trump accusing media outlets of making up stories, countered by fact-checkers charging that the president and his administration are making false or misleading statements, many young millennial voters in the poll reported that they frequently feel outraged and confused about what is really going on. The midterm elections are Nov. 6.

Most young millennials said the news is either having no effect or making them feel less motivated to vote.

Jill Darling

"However, unlike older voters who reported that these feelings are translating into an increased motivation to go to the polls in November, most young millennials said the news is either having no effect or making them feel less motivated to vote," she said.

It is well documented that frequency of voting tends to increase with age as people build ties to their communities through marriage and homeownership. In an election year that is often viewed as a referendum on the Trump presidency, there has been some speculation that millennial voters may turn out in higher numbers. However, when all eligible voters in the poll were asked how likely they were to vote in November, the average was barely more than half among young millennial adults. That stands in stark contrast to the high of 85 percent among their baby boomer grandparents who said they were likely to vote.

Millennial voters: Why they might sit out the election

"There may be many reasons why people who usually sit out the midterms could decide to vote this year," Darling said. "Our study indicates that negative feelings caused by consuming news created by, or about, President Trump may be one of those motivators for older voters on the left and on the right. However, those feelings seem to be having either no effect, or a suppressive one, on young millennial adults."

The USC Dornsife/L.A. Times poll is a partnership of the Los Angeles Times and two USC Dornsife institutions: the Center for the Political Future and the Center for Economic and Social Research. The overall margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points for all eligible and plus or minus 4 for registered and likely voters. The survey, results and methodology are available online. Information about the Center for Economic and Social Research Understanding America Study internet panel is available online.

]]>
The big questions: How will that disappointment affect how they vote Nov. 6 &mdash; and will they bother to vote at all?
Nearly 500 USC students registered to vote as a part of National Voter Registration Day drive Sept. 25. (Photo/Ling Luo, Daily Trojan) County voters consider homelessness measure March 7https://news.usc.edu/117114/county-voters-consider-homelessness-measure-march-7/
https://news.usc.edu/117114/county-voters-consider-homelessness-measure-march-7/#respondFri, 03 Mar 2017 20:13:14 +0000USC Newshttps://news.usc.edu/?p=117114
USC experts weigh in on the proposal, which would provide $373 million a year for social services.
Measure H, a quarter-cent sales tax to fund homeless services throughout Los Angeles County, will be on the ballot March 7. The measure would generate $373 million a year to fund support social services for the homeless in the county, estimated at more than 47,000 in 2016. USC experts weigh in.

Support for families, substance abuse treatment

"Measure H represents a landmark for the region in trying to help reduce homelessness in a meaningful way. The resources will provide needed housing and shelter for the homeless, but the measure will also allow for the expansion of services such as job counseling, substance abuse treatment and support for families."

RAPHAEL BOSTICDirector of the Bedrosian Center on Governance at the USC Price School of Public Policy

Finding housing

"We can work with religious communities and churches around the city to identify underutilized properties. There are hundreds if not thousands of these properties around the city that could be converted or developed for housing."

A complex issue for veterans

"The Veterans Administration spends $137,000 per year on each homeless veteran. But homelessness is rarely the only problem. There are mental and physical health issues, legal troubles and substance use.

"We can't adopt European models here because of major cultural differences, but we shouldn't act like no one can solve this problem."

CARL CASTROAssistant professor at the USC Suzanne Dworak-Peck School of Social Work

An evidence-based approach

"At USC, we have a range of expertise at the university both on methodology and on substance that will help us refine the research and to capture more people in the count. We take an interdisciplinary approach to this very diverse, complicated problem that has so many aspects to it -- housing, jobs, social structure and race."

MICHAEL COUSINEAUProfessor of clinical preventative medicine at the Keck School of Medicine of USC

More homeless women in Los Angeles County

"We see so many more women now who are chronically homeless. They need different services."

]]>
USC experts weigh in on the proposal, which would provide $373 million a year for social services
Measure H would provide $373 million a year to provide social services to address homelessness. (Photo/Michael Coghlan) Starting a campaign for redistricting reformhttps://news.usc.edu/116220/starting-a-campaign-for-redistricting-reform/
https://news.usc.edu/116220/starting-a-campaign-for-redistricting-reform/#respondTue, 14 Feb 2017 22:10:31 +0000USC Newshttps://news.usc.edu/?p=116220
Gerrymandering, a timely topic at a USC event, has dramatic consequences in U.S. politics.
Ask author David Daley about last year's election and he'll say savvy Republican strategists decided it by reinventing one of the oldest political tricks in the book -- gerrymandering.

"Redistricting is a huge political issue in the country that has shaped the nature of our politics," said USC Price Dean Jack H. Knott. "In terms of civil rights, it has been used to discriminate against minority groups. It's also been used to create the kind of incumbency protections that we have; so that in many states, the majority of legislators do not even face any competition, which has led to the terms limit movement in several states. And, in many ways, it's led to the polarization we face as a country."

As California's 38th governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger helped gain approval for a citizen redistricting initiative that took away the drawing of district lines from lawmakers. USC Schwarzenegger Institute Global Director Bonnie Reiss explained that it "is really our belief, and Arnold's belief, that democracy works best when there's accountability for our leaders and when the voters pick the political leaders -- not the political leaders pick who their voters will be."

How to catalyze a campaign

Schwarzenegger, who live-streamed the discussion to 6,000 viewers on his Facebook page, noted that in the decade prior to California's implementation of citizen redistricting in 2010, only one incumbent lost a seat in more than 500 elections. Since then, there has been a 26 percent turnover.

Schwarzenegger explained how the "event is all about one thing" -- and that's to catalyze a national campaign for redistricting reform.

USC is a great place to launch this whole thing. I think we can go nationwide with this and bring some sanity to our political system.

Arnold Schwarzenegger

"USC is a great place to launch this whole thing," he said. "I think we can go nationwide with this and bring some sanity to our political system."

He also pointed out that, while Daley's book focuses on "Project REDMAP," where republican strategists used gerrymandering to fix the game in their favor, gerrymandering is and has been used by both parties more interested in protecting their seat than being accountable to the voters. Schwarzenegger remains committed to redistricting reform that creates a fair system and does not favor either party, but puts the will of the people first.

By targeting relatively inexpensive state races in 2010, Jankowski, with support from Karl Rove and other Republican strategists, was able to flip the majorities in 16 state legislatures from Democrat to Republican just in time for them to control drawing the district lines following the 2010 census.

Gerrymandering has been going on since the 18th century, but with new technology from micro-targeting and computer-aided mapping techniques, it entered what Daley called the steroids era.

After election day in 2010, Republicans controlled the drawing of 193 Congressional seats, Democrats controlled 44 and independent commissions determined 88. It was a dramatic reversal from the previous decade that favored Democrats 135 to 98.

Clear results

Today, the Republicans have the presidency, 69 of 99 legislative chambers, both houses in 35 states, a modern record of 33 governors and the trifecta of legislative chambers and the governor's office in 25 states.

"The plan worked, as is proven by the Republican monopoly in Washington and the super majorities in statehouses nationwide, often achieved with fewer aggregate votes," Daley said. "But it has also had dramatic unforeseen consequences for our politics, which have become more extreme, more polarizing and, most dangerously, more insulated from the ballot box than perhaps any time in our history."

Republicans succeeded in gerrymandering many of the swing states from the presidential election -- Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, Florida, North Carolina and Wisconsin. In 2012, once the gerrymandering was complete, the Republicans won 13 of Pennsylvania's Congressional seats to five for the Democrats, despite receiving 100,000 fewer votes.

"When our democratic institutions become separated from popular will," Daley said, "they cease to be effective."

Grassroots reform

Kathay Feng, national redistricting director of Common Cause, and Chris Carson, president of the League of Women Voters, joined Daley and Schwarzenegger to provide an overview of reform efforts. Congressional lines won't be redrawn again until 2022, leaving legal challenges such as one in Wisconsin as the best hope for quick reform.

Schwarzenegger noted that he is an optimistic person who has seen the country go through many major problems since he arrived in 1968 during the Vietnam War. He believes that political reform regarding redistricting can and will happen starting at a grassroots level.

"We're going through some difficult moments right now as we have in the past, but I guarantee you that we will work our way out of this," Schwarzenegger said. "The reason I believe that is I know the American people are not people who just sit in front of the television set and complain. They go and become actively involved because they know that democracy is not a spectator sport."

]]>
Gerrymandering, a timely topic at a USC event, has dramatic consequences in U.S. politics
Arnold Schwarzenegger expresses the need to organize a national campaign for redistricting reform. (Photo/Deirdre Flanagan) A presidential transition: How the new team members work with the government ‘lifers’https://news.usc.edu/115905/a-presidential-transition-how-the-new-team-members-work-with-the-government-lifers/
https://news.usc.edu/115905/a-presidential-transition-how-the-new-team-members-work-with-the-government-lifers/#respondSat, 04 Feb 2017 00:02:14 +0000USC Newshttps://news.usc.edu/?p=115905
USC's William Resh, an expert on public management, looks at what's going on in Washington.
President Donald Trump isn't the only one with a new job. Since Inauguration Day, positions up and down the federal bureaucracy have been filled with new people, working side by side with the legions of employees who have spent their entire careers in government. It's a challenging situation for any new administration.

William Resh of the USC Price School of Public Policy has focused his research on public management with focus on public politics, management of federal executive agencies, and penned a book, Rethinking the Administrative Presidency: Trust, Intellectual Capital, and Appointee-Careerist Relations in the George W. Bush Administration. USC News asked him to explain the transition process and the impact Trump's appointees could have on running the government and implementing policy.

USC News: Is the transition to the Trump administration similar to previous presidential transitions?

Resh: [The Trump transition team] is falling into the classic trap with the thought that government needs to be run like a business. They arrive with a narrow value set and narrow policy perspective with the expectation that everyone will fall in line according to the policies at the top.

When imposing a top-down policy, this often leaves the careerists in the dark as to what their policies really are. There is an expectation that careerists in the government are just automatons.

This initial interaction creates distrust between the careerists and the new administration.

What kind of effects can this have on the running of the government?

Often, careerists may be passive in their compliance with directives and just do what they are told - it fosters an unwillingness to work hard on behalf of the president. They may not alert higher ups that something has already been tried in the past. Instead of making use of the vast institutional knowledge available to them, new administrations are unwilling to tap into that.

Would you call this an unusual transition?

It is unusual in the sense that there is typically professionalism in an agency. Careerists provide a separate check and balance to protect against political moral hazards or short-term electoral considerations that may be counter to the public's best interest.

Intellectual capital is built and created through the exchange of information. Without exchange and failing to take the time to learn from the wide base of institutional knowledge, they cannot expect to have their policies immediately implemented.

So why is this system in place?

We have a civil service system built on the idea of a merit system designed to keep employment practices free of political influence, which is why it is very difficult to fire a bureaucrat. Career civil servants try to protect against politicization. When a president selects agency heads in the manner Trump has, select market segments are going to be favored in the policy-making process.

Policies used to come from agencies, but now presidential administrations are building a parallel bureaucracy out of the White House. Instead, [the White House] is the one to craft policy. This trend fails to take into account common spillover effects that agency experts are more equipped to tackle institutionally - subsequently, unintended consequences emerge and an inevitable politicization of the policymaking process takes place as the White House is far more responsive to interests important to it and its party electorally.

Have the seeds of distrust already been sown between the careerists and Trump's appointees?

There were many reports that agencies had not heard from the Trump administration prior to Inauguration Day. Although government agencies are tasked with preparing reports for the incoming administration, there was no communication about the new president's policies.

The Trump administration had many opportunities to build a relationship with the bureaucracy, but so far it isn't promising.

]]>
USC&rsquo;s William Resh, an expert on public management, looks at what&rsquo;s going on in Washington
In Washington these days, it’s not just the president who is new in his job. (Photo/Angela N.) How Did American Politics Lose Its Civility?https://news.usc.edu/trojan-family/how-did-american-politics-lose-its-civility-usc-experts-weigh-in/
https://news.usc.edu/trojan-family/how-did-american-politics-lose-its-civility-usc-experts-weigh-in/#respondWed, 14 Sep 2016 20:26:56 +0000USC Newshttps://news.usc.edu/?post_type=tfm&p=106526
...
In 1800, Thomas Jefferson found himself in the political race of his life. Jefferson was running for president of the young republic and needed an edge in the election against John Adams, his friend turned philosophical and political foe.

Jefferson called on a journalist and pamphleteer named James Callender. He secretly funded Callender's attacks on Adams, who was soon denounced as a hypocrite and warmonger. Adams, Callender declared, "behaved neither like a man nor like a woman but instead possessed a hideous hermaphroditical character."

Adams and his supporters retaliated. They called Jefferson an atheist and seized on racist attitudes, dubbing him the "son of a half-breed Indian squaw."

When the name-calling ended and operatives finally put down their quills, Jefferson won the election.

Fast forward 216 years, and the mudslinging tone of the presidential race sounds surprisingly familiar. During every presidential election cycle, pundits seem to utter the same declaration: "This could be the nastiest, bloodiest race we've seen in years." Sometimes they're right.

Over the last two decades, fundamental changes in the political landscape, global economy and technology have changed the tenor of politics and civility in society. The pamphlets and journals of Jefferson's day have given way to seemingly endless news and opinion outlets, from magazines and websites to social media, television programs, radio shows and podcasts with political viewpoints. Discourse often descends into the rude and crude. Republican presidential candidates talk about the size of one's hands--and its physical implications, nudge nudge--during a national debate. Supporters of a Democratic presidential candidate throw chairs and issue death threats over delegate counts in Nevada. A woman running for the Texas education board alleges that President Barack Obama was a gay prostitute in his 20s and used the proceeds to pay for drugs.

"Today anybody can say anything and everyone has a channel. Senator Pat Moynihan once said, 'Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.' Now everybody has their own facts," says Robert Shrum, veteran political consultant and professor of politics at the USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences. "You can go to the website you want, to the TV channel you want, and get the facts you want."

Shrum has witnessed many of the highs and lows of campaign rhetoric during dozens of election cycles in American politics. He has steered campaigns for U.S. Democratic presidential candidates, congressional representatives, governors and mayors for the last 40 years.

Today anybody can say anything and everyone has a channel. Senator Pat Moynihan once said, 'Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.' Now everybody has their own facts.

Robert Shrum

He worked with Ted Kennedy in the 1980s when there were clearly strong philosophical and political differences between Republicans and Democrats. But he points out that there was a different tone then.

"Amid their differences, President [Ronald] Reagan and Kennedy worked together on immigration reform. Reagan and [Democratic house speaker] Tip O'Neill compromised on Social Security. Reagan would go out and have a drink with Tip O'Neill, and he could raise funds for the Kennedy Library," Shrum says.

"Today, a lot of the pragmatism that I have seen in my political career has been driven out of the system. What I see politicians focusing on is not a series of programs and policies, but more on alienation and anger."

Data from the Pew Research Center seem to confirm a growing divide in politics: Democrats and Republicans have moved farther apart. According to Pew, more than nine of 10 Republicans today skew more conservative than the typical Democrat. Compare that to the 1990s, when that was true for more than six out of every 10 Republicans. Similar shifts happened among Democrats: Today more than nine out of every 10 of them are more liberal than the average Republican, up from seven out of every 10 in the 1990s.

Jack Knott, dean and the C. Erwin and Ione L. Piper Chair and Professor of the USC Price School of Public Policy, links the declining civility in society and rising polarization of American politics to three key changes in governance: the gerrymandering of congressional and state assembly districts to create more "safe" constituencies for each party; the primary voting system that bases candidate selection on the participation of the most extreme partisans; and the McCain/Feingold campaign finance law that had the unintended consequence of redirecting large campaign funds to extreme political interest groups.

These three issues are particularly important given the unevenness in the distribution of income in the U.S., he adds.

"We are in the midst of the greatest economic inequality in America since the late 19th century, and the bulk of the middle class is slowly shrinking away. We are seeing growing disaffected groups of workers who have not seen their paychecks increase over decades," Knott says.

"There is also the fear of terrorism and the changing demographics of the country. We are becoming an increasingly multicultural society, and many people feel unsettled by this."

At the same time, Americans' trust in government has plunged to new lows, according to national surveys. During such uncertain times, people have a tendency to return to survival and coping instincts, says Jesse Graham, an associate professor of psychology at USC Dornsife whose research focuses on how ideology and morality interact to influence human thought and behavior. "We are tribal by nature, and it's very easy to turn that tribal switch on," Graham says. "I think politics becomes a trigger for tribalism."

Graham points to a famous study by the social psychologist Muzafer Sherif in the 1950s. Sherif divided up a group of 11- to 12-year-old boys in an isolated, mountainous setting and gave the groups names: the Eagles and the Rattlers. The groups lived near each other, and each group was allowed to bond and form allegiances without contact with the other group. Then the experiment team introduced competition between the Eagles and the Rattlers. Baseball games quickly devolved into name-calling, the tribes vandalized each other's camps, and soon they were ready to fight with rocks and sticks before the researchers stopped the violence.

Graham believes that the dynamics and dysfunction of the Eagles and Rattlers experiment can be seen in myriad tribes today--liberals versus conservatives, vaccination supporters versus anti-vaxxers or the National Rifle Association versus the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, for example.

And the goals of the tribes center too much on attacking the credibility and character of the opposing tribe, he notes, rather than on getting along. "If your goal is just obstruction and to stop the other side, that doesn't lend itself to civility," Graham says.

So that raises the most important question during these contentious times: Do people from all of these tribes--Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, biomedical researchers, environmentalists, climate scientists and climate change skeptics, just to name a few--have any chance to get along in the 21st century? Bonnie Reiss, who is the global director of the USC Schwarzenegger Institute for State and Global Policy, believes that different political tribes can work together by making changes to the political system, and she has a body of experience to prove it.

Reiss, a lifelong Democrat who clerked for Sen. Ted Kennedy and worked with President Bill Clinton on the 52nd Presidential Inauguration, spent five years as a senior advisor to California's Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger from 2003 to 2007. "Arnold wanted to surround himself with people from different backgrounds and find common ground," Reiss says. "And that is the mission of the institute--to solve problems without regard to politics or ideology."

The USC Schwarzenegger Institute has done research on how two California reform measures reduced partisanship in the state. In 2008, California voters approved the creation of an independent panel to draw district lines. The goal was to end political gerrymandering, a practice that allowed elected officials to draw their own political district lines and ensure that districts would consistently be Republican or Democratic.

California voters approved a second significant reform in 2010 by ending the closed primary system--where only partisan voters could participate in primary elections--and replacing it with a top-two primary system. The top-two system allows all voters to participate in one primary, and the two candidates receiving the most votes, regardless of party, face each other in the general election.

Reiss and her colleague Christian Grose, a USC Schwarzenegger Institute faculty fellow, summarized the results of their research on these two reforms in a 2016 op-ed in the Sacramento Bee:

"The research shows a significant reduction in legislator ideological extremity, with a 34 percent reduction in the Assembly, and a 31 percent reduction in the Senate. This has led observers who once considered California 'ungovernable' to look at it as an example of what is possible when partisan polarization is reduced.

"We also conducted research outside of California that compared the outreach and messaging of candidates in states with closed primaries to those with open primaries and top-two primary systems. Here, too, the findings were significant. Candidates were more responsive to independent voters in both open and top-two primaries, and candidate messages to voters of the other party were more bipartisan in open primary states and even more so in top-two primary states."

Like Reiss, Dan Schnur still sees the possibility for civil discussion and positive political change during these complicated times--especially starting with young people. Schnur directs USC Dornsife's Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics, where he helps students from across the political spectrum engage in government and public service, and teaches popular classes in politics, communications and leadership. Schnur has decades of experience as a political reformer and a leading political strategist and communicator. He has worked on issues ranging from redistricting to rebuilding the political center.

"At the Unruh Institute, we host 20 to 25 events a year that are designed to include a range of viewpoints and ideologies so our students understand different political perspectives," Schnur says. "We ask people to explain what they believe without demonizing others. We want our students to understand that people who disagree with them are not stupid or evil--they just happen to have come to different conclusions and deserve respect."

For Schnur's colleague Shrum, this approach of teaching measured discourse, well-articulated arguments and agreeing to disagree is perhaps the only way forward. Shrum doesn't see any neat, simple solutions to the current problems of political discourse. He doesn't believe that civility in society can be legislated, and he knows there's no way to control the accuracy of information as it filters through the internet, social media and the 24-hour news cycle.

For Shrum, it all comes back to the idea that individuals are capable of elevating the way they interact with others and taking responsibility for how they express their arguments. "I think we have to come back to Jefferson's notion. The best answer to bad speech is good speech," Shrum says.

Maybe focusing on common problems, rather than fixating on personalities and winning at all costs, is the most promising approach. The Founding Fathers did that. A decade after Jefferson and Adams battled bitterly for the presidency, they became friends and regular correspondents, returning to the intellectual high ground that represented the best of their political careers.

On Jan. 21, 1812, Jefferson wrote words to Adams that perhaps could inspire today's politicos to opt for civil compromise:

"A letter from you calls up recollections very dear to my mind. It carries me back to the times when, beset with difficulties and dangers, we were fellow laborers in the same cause, struggling for what is most valuable to man, his right of self-government. Laboring always at the same oar, with some wave ever ahead threatening to overwhelm us and yet passing harmless under our bark, we knew not how, we rode through the storm with heart and hand, and made a happy port."

]]>
Researchers look at the road to rudeness and chart a path to more respectful discourse.
ILLUSTRATIONS BY THE HEADS OF STATE Q&A: Why Presidential Primaries?https://news.usc.edu/trojan-family/why-presidential-primaries/
https://news.usc.edu/trojan-family/why-presidential-primaries/#respondWed, 01 Jun 2016 20:07:24 +0000USC Newshttps://news.usc.edu/?post_type=tfm&p=99716
A preeminent media scholar traces how primary elections shaped modern American politics.
ABC News once called Geoffrey Cowan "the man who did more to change Democratic conventions than anyone since Andrew Jackson first started them." That's because he helped convince the Democratic Party to curb the influence of party bosses and reform its presidential candidate selection process after Hubert Humphrey gained the party's 1968 nomination without winning a single primary. Inspired by his own experiences and President Theodore Roosevelt's belief in direct democracy, Cowan penned his latest book, Let The People Rule: Theodore Roosevelt and the Birth of the Presidential Primary. Cowan, a University Professor who holds the Annenberg Family Chair in Communication Leadership at USC Annenberg, recently spoke to USC senior writer Marc Ballon about the presidential election process.

How did Theodore Roosevelt's passion to "let the people rule" change presidential primaries?

He opposed primaries before he embraced them, but he was such a charismatic figure that once he became their champion, the number of states holding them more than doubled to 13. Although it can certainly be improved, the presidential primary process has served Americans well in the past and will continue to do so in the future.

You argue that John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama probably wouldn't have been nominated in the absence of presidential primaries.

Primaries have sometimes proved that candidates can get popular support, even if there are substantial doubts about their viability. By winning West Virginia, a Protestant state, Kennedy proved that a Catholic could win. That forced the hand of party leaders, including Catholic bosses who had doubted that JFK could be elected. In Reagan's case, many argued that he was too old to serve as president. Then he ran an extremely vigorous primary campaign that made his age less of an issue. There are a lot of analogies between John F. Kennedy in 1960 and Barack Obama in 2008. Even many African-Americans didn't think Obama could win and didn't rally to him until he won the caucuses in Iowa, a heavily white state.

What are drawbacks to the current primary and caucus system?

Some people criticize the practice of starting with Iowa and New Hampshire, two small, homogeneous and largely rural states. Others note that by allowing states to hold closed primaries where independents can't vote, primaries exclude 40 percent of the electorate and lead candidates to play to the often-ideological base. And caucuses don't allow for a secret ballot and only allow participation by voters who can attend during the hours when they are held.

Why not replace them with national same-day primary elections?

National primaries would be so expensive that it could be almost impossible for fresh and sometimes little-known candidates to emerge. Additionally, the current primary system, with its emphasis on retail politics, forces candidates to mix with the people and learn their true concerns. I think that's a plus. But there might be a virtue in regional primaries as has been proposed by the Association of Secretaries of State.

After losing the Republican nomination, Theodore Roosevelt created the Bull Moose Party, which quickly faded. Why the difficulty in creating third parties in American politics?

There are some structural impediments that make it difficult to create third parties, and to some extent, primaries now provide a way for parties to change themselves. In the past century, third parties have quickly disappeared. Think of George Wallace's American Independent Party in 1968, John Anderson in 1980, Ross Perot in 1992 and Ralph Nader in 2000. In general, those efforts were based on candidates or a momentary cause and not on a national movement.

]]>
A preeminent political scholar traces how primary elections shaped modern American politics.
Geoffrey Cowan / PHOTO BY BENJAMIN DUNN California voters have mixed views on Common Core standardshttps://news.usc.edu/85912/california-voters-have-mixed-views-on-common-core-standards/
https://news.usc.edu/85912/california-voters-have-mixed-views-on-common-core-standards/#respondTue, 08 Sep 2015 17:00:22 +0000USC Newshttps://news.usc.edu/?p=85912
A strong majority still know little or nothing about the new standards, according to a PACE/USC Rossier Poll.
As Californians get their first look at new test results since 2013, a new poll shows state voters have mixed views on the Common Core State Standards, and their views shift with the way questions about the standards are posed.

Levels of support for the Common Core are generally higher -- and levels of opposition are lower -- in California than in the rest of the nation. The PACE/USC Rossier School of Education Poll shows a strong majority still know little or nothing about the new standards, however, and many voters are misinformed about the details. More than one in four California voters (26 percent) had not heard of the Common Core State Standards, the poll showed.

The PACE/USC Rossier Poll randomly asked voters several differently worded questions about Common Core support, reflecting the different questions included in other national and California polls. The results of the poll showed the wording of the question can dramatically affect responses.

Approve or disapprove?

When asked simply to what extent they approve or disapprove of the Common Core, 26 percent of California voters said they approve, while 31 percent said they disapprove and 17 percent had no opinion. Opposition among parents was higher: 38 percent said they disapprove of Common Core, while 31 percent said they approve and 16 percent had no opinion.

When the poll asked voters whether they support or oppose "having the teachers in your community use the Common Core State Standards to guide what they teach," as the recent PDK/Gallup Poll posed the question, the percentage who support Common Core fell to 24 percent. The percentage that opposed the new standards also fell, to 27 percent.

When the question presented more information about the Common Core, however, support for the new standards was much higher. Support for the new standards rose to 52 percent when California voters were asked the following question, which was included in a recent Education Next poll:

As you may know, over the past few years states have been deciding whether or not to implement the Common Core State Standards, which are national standards for reading, writing and math. In the states that have these standards, they will be used to hold public schools accountable for their performance. To what extent do you support or oppose the use of the Common Core Standards in California?

Even after four years of implementation ..., most Californians simply don't know or don't care much about Common Core.

Morgan Polikoff

"Even after four years of implementation and a great deal of political controversy, most Californians simply don't know or don't care much about Common Core," said Morgan Polikoff, assistant professor of education at USC Rossier and an expert on Common Core standards. "Their views depend to a surprising extent on the questions they are asked about the new standards."

Knowledge of the standards

The PACE/USC Rossier Poll also found that nearly six in 10 voters (59 percent) said they knew "a little" or "nothing" about the Common Core State Standards, with 41 percent of voters who said they knew "some" or "a lot" about them.

Reported knowledge of the standards was greater among parents, 54 percent of whom said they knew "a lot" or "some" and 46 percent of whom said they knew "a little" or nothing, according to the poll.

A plurality of voters also had misconceptions about several tenets of the standards: 34 percent of voters said Common Core requires more testing than California's previous standards (17 percent said this was false and 49 percent were unsure); 25 percent said the federal government required California to adopt the Common Core (20 percent said this was false, 54 percent were unsure); and 30 percent said the statement that Common Core only applies to English and math is false (20 percent said this was true and 49 percent were unsure).

Parents were more likely to have misconceptions in these areas: 41 percent said Common Core requires more testing than California's previous standards (18 percent said this was false and 42 percent were unsure); 34 percent said the federal government required California to adopt the Common Core (21 percent said this was false, 46 percent were unsure); and 35 percent said the statement that Common Core only applies to English and math is false (28 percent said this was true and 37 percent were unsure).

Voters who claim to have more knowledge of the standards are often considerably more likely to hold misconceptions about the standards than those who claim to have less knowledge. For instance, 52 percent of voters who report knowing a lot about the standards think Common Core applies in subjects other than math and English, and 57 percent believe Common Core requires more testing, both of which are incorrect.

There remains a great deal of misinformation about the standards.

Morgan Polikoff

"There remains a great deal of misinformation about the standards, and this is almost certainly driving some portion of the opposition here in California," Polikoff said.

Key election issue?

Republicans were more likely than Democrats to be misinformed about what subjects were included in Common Core, 34 percent to 29 percent. Democrats were more likely to be wrong about whether Common Core required more testing, 38 percent to 32 percent.

But the Common Core is unlikely to be an important election issue, with a plurality (34 percent) saying they would be no more or less likely to support a presidential candidate who strongly supported Common Core. Twenty-four percent of voters said they would be less likely to support such a candidate, and 19 percent said they would be more likely to support that candidate.

"California's policy leaders have been very deliberate in their implementation of the Common Core, which has short-circuited much of the political controversy that has emerged in other states," said David Plank, executive director of PACE. "California's teachers unions and other education organizations are united in their support for the state's new standards, and the opponents of Common Core have not found a way to make it a significant statewide issue."

Voters strongly support state testing policies

When asked to guess how long they thought California students spend taking state tests in a school year, voters on average said more than 23 hours, the poll showed.

After being told that California students spend 8 to 10 hours taking standardized tests in a year, 34 percent said that level of testing was "just right." Thirty-one percent said that amount of testing was "too little" and 20 percent said it was "too much," according to the poll.

Despite their equivocal stance on the amount of testing, nearly seven in 10 voters said students should be tested in every grade to ensure they are progressing, and results of state tests should be used widely and for many purposes. Among Latino voters, 81 percent said students should be tested in every grade, higher than the 66 percent of white and African-American voters who agreed with annual testing.

When asked which ways student scores should be used, 82 percent said to ensure students have a minimum level of achievement before graduating high school; 81 percent said to identify schools in need of support; 75 percent said to identify teachers in need of support; and 65 percent said to identify which teachers are effective or ineffective.

Voters also strongly oppose allowing parents to let their children skip taking state tests, the poll showed. Sixty-eight percent said they disagree with allowing parents to let their children opt-out of taking tests, as opposed to 22 percent who agreed. Opposition to opt-out was strongest among whites, with 70 percent who disagreed with giving parents that option.

"State policymakers should be encouraged to see that the majority of voters support annual testing and multiple uses of those data," said USC Associate Professor and PACE Co-Director Julie Marsh. "The big question is whether that support will continue after the new Smarter Balanced test results are released.”

Results from the PACE/USC Rossier Poll released Aug. 27 showed voters are increasingly optimistic about California public schools, and a strong majority would back the reauthorization of Proposition 30 to provide additional funding to public campuses.

The PACE/USC Rossier School of Education Poll was conducted Aug. 3-22 by polling firms MFour Mobile Research and Tulchin Research and surveyed 2,411 registered California voters. The poll was conducted online and allowed respondents to complete the survey on a desktop or laptop computer, tablet or smartphone. The poll was conducted in English and Spanish. The margin of error for the overall sample was +/- 2.9 percentage points.

The poll is the fifth in a series from Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE) and the USC Rossier School of Education.

]]>
A strong majority still know little or nothing about the new standards, according to a PACE/USC Rossier Poll
The results of the poll showed the wording of the question can dramatically affect responses. (Photo/Pete via flickr) Poll: California voters back Prop. 30 extension in support of public schoolshttps://news.usc.edu/85531/poll-california-voters-back-prop-30-extension-in-support-of-public-schools/
https://news.usc.edu/85531/poll-california-voters-back-prop-30-extension-in-support-of-public-schools/#respondThu, 27 Aug 2015 17:00:47 +0000USC Newshttps://news.usc.edu/?p=85531
The results indicate a rising sense of optimism among a majority of voters, according to a new USC Rossier poll.
As optimism about the state of California's public schools continues to rise, a strong majority of California voters would back the reauthorization of Proposition 30 to channel additional money to public campuses, according to a new poll.

The PACE/USC Rossier School of Education Poll shows 63 percent of voters are in favor of extending at least one provision of Prop. 30 -- the tax increase on high incomes or the sales tax hike or both -- that is set to expire at the end of 2016. Only 28 percent of voters said both fiscal provisions should be allowed to expire, the poll showed.

Approved by the voters in 2012, Prop. 30 temporarily increased the state sales tax by a quarter cent and the personal income tax rate on people earning more than $250,000 a year to fund public education and other government programs.

Six in 10 voters said California should be spending more on schools, as opposed to 26 percent who said the state's public schools have enough money, the poll showed.

"Since the inception of this poll in 2012, we have identified valuable trends that not only reflect the opinions of the state's voters but also influence policymakers in Sacramento," said USC Rossier School Dean Karen Symms Gallagher. "The latest results indicate a growing confidence in our public school system as voters are clearly willing to provide greater financial support to education.”

Less enthusiasm for Prop. 13

Voters were comparatively less enthusiastic about proposed changes to Proposition 13, which sets limits on property taxes. Changing the rules on the taxation of business and commercial property would raise an estimated $6 billion to $10 billion per year, of which 40 percent would go to public schools. A slight majority of voters -- 51 percent -- said they would support changes to Prop. 13, as compared to 39 percent who would oppose it.

"Although voters want more invested in education, we don't see an underlying appetite for more extreme measures, such as making changes to Prop. 13," said Jeff Harrelson, chief operating officer of the Republican polling firm MFour Mobile Research, part of the bipartisan team with the Democratic polling firm Tulchin Research that conducted the PACE/USC Rossier Poll. "Policymakers should be prepared to engage in an extended voter education effort on this issue."

Said Ben Tulchin, president of Tulchin Research: "Voters believe California's public schools have made some progress over the last few years. As a result, a large majority of California voters wants to extend Proposition 30, particularly its tax on the wealthy, in order to continue this progress."

California voters have become less pessimistic about the state of their public schools. Between 2012, when the question was first asked, and 2015, the percentage of voters who say the state's public schools have gotten better more than doubled, from 7 percent to 17 percent. During that same time period, the percentage of voters who said public schools were getting worse declined, from 57 percent to 39 percent. Thirty-six percent of voters said public schools had stayed the same.

When asked about their neighborhood public schools, 17 percent of California voters said they had gotten better, up from 11 percent in 2012. Thirty-four percent of voters said their local public schools had gotten worse, down from 45 percent in 2012. Thirty-eight percent of voters said local public schools had stayed the same.

"Voters are clearly not satisfied with the state of California's public education system, but they are beginning to see their schools moving in the right direction," said David Plank, executive director of PACE. “They still see a lot of room for improvement, but this is a very encouraging trend."

What is the Local Control Funding Formula?

Sixty-five percent of California voters said they have never heard or read about the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF), Gov. Jerry Brown's 2013 reform under which billions of dollars have been funneled to school districts to directly help English learners, foster children and students from low-income families, and an additional 21 percent said they had not heard or read much about it, the poll showed. Only 14 percent of voters said they had heard or read a little or a great deal about the LCFF.

When given basic information about the new funding formula, 57 percent said they approved of the policy, while 22 percent said they opposed it.

The new LCFF policy requires school districts to work with their local communities to develop accountability plans and decide on the allocation of funds, but just 4 percent of voters said they had been invited to or made aware of a meeting regarding LCFF. Eighty-seven percent of California voters said they were not invited or made aware of meetings related to deciding how schools should spend funds, the poll showed.

Among parents, 76 percent said they had not been invited to or made aware of a planning meeting, while 9 percent said they had.

"To have such low levels of awareness and participation after two years of LCFF implementation is alarming," said Julie Marsh, USC associate professor and PACE co-director. "California's new accountability system under LCFF depends on broad public engagement and an expectation that the usual suspects are not driving decisions. The overwhelming majority of voters endorses public participation, but we'll have to do a lot more to bring them into the process."

Those California voters who had heard "a good deal or a little" about LCFF were more likely than those who were unaware of the new funding policy to be engaged already with their schools in other ways. Voters who were aware of LCFF were nearly twice as likely to vote in school board elections (38 percent) as those who were unaware (20 percent) and more than four times as likely to be members of a PTA (29 percent versus 7 percent).

Nearly 8 in 10 voters (79 percent) said they thought it was important for parents and community members to be involved in the LCFF process, as opposed to 10 percent who thought it was unimportant, according to the poll.

While the LCFF intends to broaden the measures by which schools are held accountable to include more than performance on state tests, voters appear to still greatly value student achievement measures above all others.

When asked about the eight state priorities for which schools are accountable under the new LCFF policy, voters were most likely to rank student achievement as the most important (29 percent); followed by provision of basic services as measured by, for example, the condition of school facilities (16 percent); and student engagement using measures such as school attendance (14 percent). School climate, implementation of Common Core State Standards and course access were the least likely to be ranked by voters as most important.

Approval ratings on education rise

A plurality of voters said they approved of the job Gov. Brown is doing on education, with 45 percent who approve as compared to 38 percent who disapprove -- the highest approval rating since the PACE/USC Rossier Poll first asked this question in 2013.

Forty-six percent of voters said they approve of the job President Barack Obama was doing on U.S. education issues, as compared to 41 percent who disapprove.

The poll also showed that Californians continue to give the state's public schools average grades, although fewer voters believe schools are failing.

The largest percentage of Californians (43 percent) gave their state's schools a grade of "C". And 32 percent of voters graded them a "D" or "F," down from 42 percent in 2012.

Twenty-one percent of voters gave their local public schools a "D" or "F" grade, down from 32 percent in 2012.

When asked to rank the state's public schools on specific measures of performance, on a scale of 0 (worst) to 10 (best), Californians gave the best mean score -- 5.24 -- to "teaching the basics of reading, writing and math." The next highest marks came for "preparing students for a four-year university" (4.9) and "providing parents with a choice of public schools to send their child" (4.74). The lowest was "not spending too much on bureaucracy" (3.98).

The PACE/USC Rossier School of Education Poll was conducted Aug. 3-22 by polling firms MFour Mobile Research and Tulchin Research and surveyed 2,411 registered California voters. The poll was conducted online and allowed respondents to complete the survey on a desktop or laptop computer, tablet or smartphone. The poll was conducted in English and Spanish. The margin of error for the overall sample was +/- 2.9 percentage points.

The poll is the fifth in a series from Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE) and USC Rossier.

]]>
The results indicate a rising sense of optimism among a majority of voters, according to a new USC Rossier poll
(Photo/USGA) Former congressmen take on Washington’s partisan dividehttps://news.usc.edu/76527/former-congressmen-take-on-washingtons-partisan-divide/
https://news.usc.edu/76527/former-congressmen-take-on-washingtons-partisan-divide/#respondThu, 26 Feb 2015 18:20:31 +0000USC Newshttps://news.usc.edu/?p=76527
Veteran political leaders Martin Frost and Tom Davis share ideas on how to fix a broken Congress.
With strong polarization leading to inaction on Capitol Hill, the USC Price School of Public Policy hosted former U.S. Congressmen Martin Frost and Tom Davis to discuss their book The Partisan Divide: Congress in Crisis.

From their combined 40 years of experience in the House of Representatives, Frost, a Democrat from Texas, and Davis, a Republican from Virginia, explained the origins of the current legislative gridlock and their keys to fixing a broken Congress.

"We're excited to have these two veteran political leaders with us to share their lessons on how better to govern," said USC Price Dean Jack H. Knott, who introduced the speakers and directed a Q&A. "According to studies in political science, partisan polarization in Congress is the greatest it has been since the early 20th century."

Teamed for TV

Frost and Davis recounted that it was television that brought them together. Cable news shows often paired the former representatives when looking for political commentary from a Republican and Democrat. Realizing that they agreed on many of the problems in Congress, the politicians decided to write a book.

Davis noted that 80 percent of districts in the House and 60 percent in the Senate are drawn to overwhelmingly favor one party. That's because in most cases, state legislators draw the districts, so the controlling party of the state will create as many districts as possible for itself. He showed pictures of some elaborately drawn districts that resembled inkblots from a Rorschach test.

The result of safe districts is there’s no incentive for one side to talk to the other side.

Martin Frost

"The result of safe districts is there’s no incentive for one side to talk to the other side," Frost said, "because if you're seen in public with a member of the other party, you're going to get an opponent in your own party's primary."

As a solution, they recommend that Congress pass legislation requiring every state to draw districts with a bipartisan commission, a system currently in place in California, Arizona, Iowa, Washington and New Jersey.

Frost and Davis blame the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 -- which they both opposed while in office -- for increasing the power of third-party groups that can drop millions of dollars in opposition to a candidate and change the outcome of an election, forcing scared members to change their voting patterns. The bill's good intention to outlaw large contributions to political parties hasn’t had the intended effect.

"Now it's out there as dark money," Davis said.

Full disclosure?

The former politicos propose passing legislation stating that any organization mentioning a federal candidate by name in an advertisement has to fully disclose its contributors in a timely basis.

Other suggestions include creating a National Primary Day for Congress, in which all primaries for the House and Senate would take place on the same day to generate larger turnouts and lessen the power of special-interest groups to swing an election, and bringing back earmarks on appropriations bills.

"If we had earmarks, it would provide incentives for members to vote for a compromise package by giving them some skin in the game," Frost said. "It would encourage members to vote for appropriations bills, which have been a major problem with the current gridlock."

]]>
Veteran political leaders Martin Frost and Tom Davis share ideas on how to fix a broken CongressUSC Dornsife/LA Times poll: Race for California’s top education post in virtual dead heathttps://news.usc.edu/70478/ace-for-top-education-post-in-calif-too-close-to-call-torlakson-and-tuck-in-virtual-dead-heat/
https://news.usc.edu/70478/ace-for-top-education-post-in-calif-too-close-to-call-torlakson-and-tuck-in-virtual-dead-heat/#respondSun, 02 Nov 2014 13:00:32 +0000USC Newshttps://news.usc.edu/?p=70478
Gov. Jerry Brown's approval numbers highest since taking office; he maintains large lead over challenger Neel Kashkari.
At a time when education has surpassed the economy as the top priority for California voters, the race for State Superintendent of Public Instruction is neck and neck, according to the latest USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll.

Among likely voters, incumbent Tom Torlakson leads challenger Marshall Tuck by a slim margin of 32-29 percent. Among all registered voters, Torlakson has a 30-28 percent lead over Tuck.

The context for the tight race is the emergence of education as the most important issue in the election for governor of California. Forty-two percent of likely voters rated education as their number one priority, followed by the economy (37 percent), water and drought issues (27 percent), crime and public safety (16 percent), taxes (17 percent), and the state budget deficit (13 percent).

There’s no precedent for what’s happening in this race.

Dan Schnur

"There's no precedent for what's happening in this race," said Dan Schnur, director of the USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times Poll and executive director of the Unruh Institute of Politics of USC.

"I can't think of a down-ticket office in recent California history that's received so much attention," Schnur said. "Some of that is the relative lack of competition at the top of the ballot, some of it is lack of extremely compelling ballot initiatives, but a lot of it is the emergence of education as such a top-tier issue for California voters. What you're seeing in this race is a predictor for a very long and divisive debate over education reform in California."

While Tuck is supportive of the ruling in Vergara v. California, which in June found the state's tenure and layoff policies for public school teachers to violate the constitutional rights of students, Torlakson has been among those seeking to appeal the ruling.

Governor’s race

In the race for governor, incumbent Jerry Brown continues to hold his lead over Republican challenger businessman Neel Kashkari. Fifty-six percent of registered likely voters said they would cast their ballot for Brown, while 37 percent would vote for Kashkari. Brown's support has remained relatively steady since a September 2014 USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times Poll; Kashkari's support has climbed by one point.

California voters also said they believe Brown would do a better job than Kashkari when it came to addressing specific issues including addressing poverty (49-24 percent); education (47-30 percent); water and drought (45-27 percent); the economy and jobs (44-34 percent); public transportation (44-26 percent); the state budget deficit (43-33 percent); crime and public safety (43-31 percent); prisons (40-29 percent); taxes (38-34 percent); and high-speed rail (37-27 percent).

Name recognition also remains something of a challenge for Kashkari. When likely California voters were asked if they knew the name of the Republican candidate for governor, only 30 percent of voters identified Kashkari. Sixty-seven percent were unsure of the candidate's name altogether. Recognition for Kashkari has ticked up slightly since the September 2014 poll, when 25 percent of likely voters named him as the Republican candidate and 75 percent were unsure.

Brown's approval rating continues to climb at 60 percent, slightly higher than his 57 percent job approval rating in the September poll, and a double-digit increase from his 44 percent approval rating in April 2011, soon after he took office. Brown's disapproval numbers remain steady at 33 percent, a one point increase since September.

California now has one of the most popular governors in the country, even as the state faces some unique challenges in terms of water and other big issues.

Drew Lieberman

"California now has one of the most popular governors in the country, even as the state faces some unique challenges in terms of water and other big issues," said Drew Lieberman, vice president of Democratic polling firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research. "People are giving him credit. He's much more closely associated with the things that have gotten better in the state since taking office than with any pessimism or concern over the big issues."

However, 46 percent of likely voters still say the state is headed on the "wrong track," though that number has been decreasing over time. Forty-nine percent agreed with that statement in the September 2014 poll compared to 82 percent who agreed in a March 2010 USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times Poll. Forty-one percent of likely voters feel that the state is going in the "right direction," up slightly from 37 percent in September 2014.

Ballot propositions

According to the USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times Poll, Propositions 1 and 2, which Brown has been promoting leading up the election, as well as Prop. 47 have strong majority support from likely voters. Likely voters oppose Propositions 45 and 46.

Proposition 1, which would authorize $7.545 billion in general obligation bonds for state water supply infrastructure projects, has the support of 61 percent of likely voters with 25 percent in opposition. That number has dropped only slightly since a September 2014 USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times Poll, which found 64 percent of likely voters supporting the initiative, with 22 percent in opposition.

Fifty-four percent of likely voters favor Proposition 2, with 26 percent opposed. The ballot initiative would require an annual transfer of state general fund revenues to a budget stabilization account, with half the revenues being used to repay state debts and the remaining funds earmarked for emergencies or budget deficits.

Proposition 47 also enjoys a strong lead with 56 percent of likely voters backing the initiative and 27 percent in opposition. The initiative would require a misdemeanor sentence instead of a felony for certain drug and property offenses, but is inapplicable to persons with prior conviction for serious or violent crime and registered sex offenders.

Proposition 45, which would require the state insurance commissioner's approval before a health insurer can change its rates or anything else affecting the other charges associated with health insurance, faces an uphill battle to pass. Forty-six percent of likely voters oppose the initiative, while 36 percent support it.

Proposition 46 is opposed by forty eight percent of likely voters, and supported by 37 percent of likely voters. Amongst all registered voters, Proposition 46 supporters and opponents are tied at 42 percent.

Support has declined by wide margins since the September 2014 poll, when 61 percent of likely voters favored the proposition and 29 percent opposed it.

The ballot initiative would require that doctors be drug tested and also requires that a statewide prescription database be reviewed before certain controlled substances are prescribed to patients, and increases the cap for medical negligence lawsuits from $250,000 to account for inflation.

Voters are willing to pass propositions when they see significant problems that need resolution.

Dave Kanevsky

"Voters are willing to pass propositions when they see significant problems that need resolution," said Dave Kanevsky, vice president of Republican polling firm American Viewpoint, part of the bipartisan team with Democratic polling firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research.

"They're willing to take on the water bond because of the drought. They understand the issues that California has had with deficits and the budget problems over the past 15-plus years. Then recently, with prison overcrowding and the lawsuits that have resulted, they're willing to take on some prison and sentencing reforms. This election is showing that voters are willing to pass ballot propositions when they see something rising to the level of a significant problem or crisis."

The amount of money spent to oppose Propositions 45 and 46 also play a part in their low support, Schnur noted.
"Propositions 1, 2 and 47 are facing little or no financial opposition, while the campaigns for Propositions 45 and 46 are being heavily outspent," he said.

High-speed rail

Californians are slightly less inclined to want to halt the state's high-speed rail project, according to the poll. When asked whether construction of California's high-speed rail line should be allowed to go ahead or if it should be stopped, voters were nearly split. Forty-eight percent said the rail project should stop, while 44 percent said that it should proceed.

These results reflect a minor shift in sentiment from the September 2013 Poll, which showed that 52 percent of voters said the project should be stopped, as opposed to 43 percent who would want the project to go forward.

The poll, the largest statewide survey of registered voters, sampled 1,537 California voters from Oct. 22-29, 2014, and includes a significant oversample of Latino voters as well as one of the most robust cell phone samples in the state. The survey was conducted by Democratic polling firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research and Republican polling firm American Viewpoint, and has a margin of error of +/- 2.9 percentage points.

]]>
Gov. Jerry Brown’s approval numbers highest since taking office; he maintains large lead over challenger Neel Kashkari
The USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times Poll surveys likely voters. (Photo: Tom Arthur via Creative Commons) Robert Shrum holds the key to a candidate’s successhttps://news.usc.edu/68739/robert-shrum-holds-the-key-to-a-candidates-success/
https://news.usc.edu/68739/robert-shrum-holds-the-key-to-a-candidates-success/#respondFri, 19 Sep 2014 20:42:20 +0000USC Newshttps://news.usc.edu/?p=68739
The Warschaw Chair in Practical Politics talks about that 'one indispensable quality' at his USC Dornsife installation.
During a ceremony to commemorate his installation as the inaugural Carmen H. and Louis Warschaw Chair in Practical Politics, veteran political consultant Robert Shrum identified the one indispensable quality for a candidate or office holder's success.

"That quality is authenticity," said Shrum, who holds the chair at the USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences. "FDR, the Kennedys, Ronald Reagan and John McCain of 2000 were preeminently themselves and that was the heart of their appeal. Whether or not you agreed with them, they took issues seriously, but they didn't take themselves too seriously."

For example, Shrum noted how John Kennedy, during his 1960 campaign, replied to a young schoolgirl who asked him about being a war hero. Kennedy answered simply that it was entirely involuntary -- they sank his boat.

"Authenticity is not something political operatives can confer," Shrum said. "But it is something that they can undermine or destroy."

I have no doubt Bob is just the leader we need to complement all of these initiatives and transform our students into their generation's movers and shakers.

Steve A. Kay

Shrum recalled a 1986 meeting with Barbara Mikulski, who became the first female Democrat ever elected to the Senate on her own. At the time, she was thinking of running for office and several consultants had already told her to change her image to fit in with the ideals of the television age. As a woman who was 'short, plump, loud and ethnic,' how should she be presented on television, she had asked Shrum.

"I replied, 'As short, plump, loud and ethnic,' " he said. "Now, after almost 30 years in the Senate, she is unbeatable. She has a cultural connection with Maryland that transcends issues and partisan trends and ties. She's authentic."

Fulfilling the Warschaw vision

The ceremony, held on Sept. 17 at Town & Gown, brought together Carmen and Louis' daughter Hope Warschaw, senior university administrators, and Shrum's family and friends. Also in attendance were Los Angeles County Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas and Bobby Shriver, candidate for L.A. County Supervisor.

The late USC Honorary Trustee Carmen Warschaw -- a political activist, philanthropist and USC alumna -- established the chair to help create civic-minded students.

USC Provost Elizabeth Garrett offered the university's gratitude to the Warschaw family for providing the endowment. Carmen Warschaw's vision for the unique chair was to support a faculty member who would bridge the gap between political theory and student involvement in the democratic process, she said.

"The endowed chair was one of Carmen's highest priorities, and we are confident that the inaugural chair holder, Professor Robert Shrum, is among the best practitioners of politics in the world to implement her vision," said Garrett, senior vice president for academic affairs.

Dean Steve A. Kay noted the ways that USC Dornsife imbues its students with both the political theory and practical skills they need to enact real and lasting change, including courses in applied politics, programming from the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics and a new Washington, D.C., program launching next spring. As the Warschaw Chair, Kay said, Shrum will be the cornerstone uniting all of these diverse efforts.

"I have no doubt Bob is just the leader we need to complement all of these initiatives and transform our students into their generation's movers and shakers," Kay said.

Several irons in the fire

Shrum's efforts are already underway. This semester, he is teaching the applied politics course "Great Races: From City Hall to the White House." He has launched a speaker series in the Department of Political Science called "Political Conversations," which brings prominent figures into dialogues with students about national politics. He is also planning to teach a Maymester course in Washington, D.C., next spring that will engage students with politicians and policymakers.

At the ceremony, Hope Warschaw shared her memories of her mother and father's involvement in California politics and their commitment to USC. The Warschaws were instrumental in starting the Casden Institute for the Study of the Jewish Role in American Life at USC Dornsife, which hosts an annual Warschaw lecture series, and helped reenergize the Unruh Institute of Politics.

"Those of you who knew my mother knew she had two great loves besides her family -- USC and politics," Warschaw said. USC was where Carmen and Louis cemented their love -- they married in college -- and it was where they first joined the Young Democrats, she noted.

Warschaw recounted that for a long time her mother had been thinking about how she could give back to the school where she felt her adult life had started. Carmen Warschaw believed the chair would be a perfect way to strengthen the political science department's curriculum in practical politics.

An eventful political career

Shrum's career in politics began in the 1970s, when he was hired as speechwriter for then-New York City Mayor John Lindsay. He went on to serve as speechwriter for Sen. George McGovern in his 1972 campaign for president. From 1980 to 1984, Shrum served as speechwriter and press secretary to Sen. Edward M. Kennedy.

He was a senior adviser to Al Gore's presidential campaign in 2000 and to John Kerry's campaign four years later. He was a consultant to the successful campaign of Prime Minister Ehud Barak of Israel in 1999; to the British Labour Party in its 2001 and 2005 parliamentary campaigns; and to winning national campaigns in Ireland in 1997 and 2002.

In the past four decades, Shrum has navigated 30 winning campaigns for U.S. Senate and eight winning campaigns for governor. He has advised campaigns for the mayors of New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia, Denver, Dade County and San Francisco, as well as for the Speaker and the Democratic leader of the U.S. House of Representatives.

Shrum also helped write the concession speech Sen. Kennedy delivered at the 1980 Democratic National Convention. Many said the powerful speech overshadowed Jimmy Carter's acceptance of the presidential nomination.

"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dream shall never die," Kennedy's speech famously concluded.

To close the ceremony, Kay presented Shrum with a wooden chair inscribed with the university seal. He also presented Hope Warschaw with a miniature version of the chair.

Of Hope and her parents Louis and Carmen, Shrum said: "I'm honored to hold a chair that bears their name."

Shrum said he is enthused to share his expertise with students at USC Dornsife.

"The practice of politics passes through constant revolution," he said. "The train brought us the whistle stop. Radio brought a media scene of conventions and campaigns. Then for nearly half a century of TV advertising, the most important political rallies have been two or three people around a television set.

"In the end, social media may prove to be direct mail on steroids. While the techniques move on, I believe the decisive role of message endures. And to explore those with students, to let them experience past campaigns in real time as people did at the time, to prompt them to deconstruct speeches, ads, code words, the nuances of theme and message -- to think critically and creatively about politics, for me, this is not a job but a privilege."

]]>
The Warschaw Chair in Practical Politics talks about that ‘one indispensable quality’ at his USC Dornsife installation
Political consultant Robert Shrum speaks at his formal installation. (Photo/Steve Cohn) Voters split on whether children crossing border illegally should stayhttps://news.usc.edu/68425/voters-split-on-whether-children-crossing-border-illegally-should-stay/
https://news.usc.edu/68425/voters-split-on-whether-children-crossing-border-illegally-should-stay/#respondMon, 15 Sep 2014 12:00:45 +0000USC Newshttps://news.usc.edu/?p=68425
But nearly three in four Californians support proposed path to citizenship legislation.

California voters are largely split on whether the tens of thousands of unaccompanied children who crossed the border illegally from Central America should be allowed to stay, but support of a "path to citizenship" for immigrants already in the country continues to be strong, according to results from the latest USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences/Los Angeles Times Poll.

Forty-eight percent of Californians said the unaccompanied children who illegally crossed the border should be allowed to stay months or years while awaiting a hearing, as opposed to 46 percent who said the children should be sent back immediately, the poll showed. Among white voters, 44 percent said the children should be allowed to stay and 51 percent said they should be sent back. Latino voters are in favor of allowing the unaccompanied minors to stay, 66-26.

But nearly three in four California voters, 73 percent, favor proposed legislation that would create a path to citizenship for those already in the country illegally, while also increasing border patrols and requiring employers to verify the immigration status of employees. Twenty-one percent of voters oppose the proposal, according to the poll.

"The controversy over young immigrants has caused support for comprehensive immigration reform to fall dramatically in national public opinion polls and may have contributed to President Obama's decision to delay action on this issue,” said Dan Schnur, director of the poll and executive director of the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics of USC. "But Californians have had a much different reaction. Even though California voters are divided over whether these young immigrants should be allowed to remain in this country, they are still overwhelmingly supportive of broader immigration reform. Californians may be conflicted on this specific issue, but they are still strong supporters of not only stronger border enforcement but of a pathway to citizenship as well."

With the 'path to citizenship' proposal, there's a little something for everybody.

Drew Lieberman

Support for immigration reform has held steady since the question was last asked in March 2013, when California voters favored immigration reform 71-21.

"With the 'path to citizenship' proposal, there's a little something for everybody," said Drew Lieberman, vice president of Democratic polling firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, part of the bipartisan team with Republican polling firm American Viewpoint that conducted the poll. "It's got the accountability measures, stronger security, and it ends with an opportunity for people to succeed and get ahead if they work hard and do the right things."

Said David Kanevsky, vice president of Republican polling firm American Viewpoint: "Voters are compassionate to those already here, but they are not open border advocates. What they don't want to do is have solutions that encourage more of the same problem."

Illegal immigration seen as a crisis

By a large margin, California voters said illegal immigration is a crisis or major problem for the state. Seventy-two percent of California voters said illegal immigration is a "crisis or major problem" for the state, as opposed to 26 percent who deem it minor or not a problem at all. Among Latinos, two-thirds of voters said illegal immigration was a "crisis or major problem."

Voters oppose, by a slim margin, a plan to allocate $3 million in taxpayer funds to nonprofit organizations to provide legal representation to these unaccompanied children facing deportation. Forty-eight percent of voters opposed such spending, as opposed to 45 percent who support the plan. White voters oppose the plan 53-41, with Latino voters in favor of the spending plan 60-33.

Among Latino voters, support for the $3 million spending plan wanes the longer they've been in the United States. Latinos born outside the U.S. are in favor 66-26, but support drops among first-generation Latinos, 57-36. Latinos who are second-generation Americans are only slightly in favor at 48-44.

"This is evidence that the concern is a lot more financial in nature; there is outright opposition to spending money," Lieberman said. "It seems like a very high bar to cross."

When asked if they were concerned about having U.S. Border Control facilities housing immigrant detainees in their own communities, 47 percent of voters said they were concerned, and 36 percent said they were "not at all concerned." Latino voters were split 41-41.

The latest USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times Poll, the largest statewide survey of registered voters, was conducted Sept. 2-8 and includes a significant oversample of Latino voters as well as one of the most robust cell phone samples in the state. The full sample of 1,507 registered voters has a margin of error of +/- 2.9 percentage points.

]]>
But nearly three in four Californians support proposed path to citizenship legislationProp. 46 support drops as voters hear details on medical negligence initiativehttps://news.usc.edu/68398/prop-46-support-drops-as-voters-hear-details-on-medical-negligence-initiative/
https://news.usc.edu/68398/prop-46-support-drops-as-voters-hear-details-on-medical-negligence-initiative/#respondSat, 13 Sep 2014 13:05:20 +0000USC Newshttps://news.usc.edu/?p=68398
Californians in favor of drug testing doctors, split on increasing lawsuits cap.
Californians back Proposition 46 by wide margins until they hear details about the ballot initiative, according to results from the latest USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times Poll.

Initially, 62 percent of voters supported the initiative when read the ballot language, with 28 percent in opposition. Proposition 46 increases the cap on medical malpractice lawsuits and requires that doctors receive drug and alcohol testing, with positive results reported to the California Medical Board.

When presented with a statement detailing the arguments of the proponents as well as the opponents of Proposition 46, support for the initiative declined steeply to 50 percent opposed and 39 percent in favor.

This statement noted that the proposition would ensure patient safety and improve medical care by holding physicians accountable. It continued that California's $250,000 limit on pain and suffering awards in malpractice suits is decades old, and that lawyers for injured people can no longer afford to take these important cases unless the limit is raised. In addition, it stated that raising the malpractice cap would drive up state and local government costs by hundreds millions of dollars each year, which would result in higher insurance rates. More bureaucracy would result, taking away doctors from providing care. Moreover, a database of Californians' personal medical prescription information would be created and run by the government.

"The initiative sponsors were very smart," said Dan Schnur, director of the poll and executive director of the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics of USC. "They tried to cover up a very controversial policy measure with a very popular one. But a ballot initiative is only as strong as its weakest link, and the polling shows that voters' concerns about medical malpractice are outweighing their eagerness for doctors to be drug tested."

When queried about specific elements of Proposition 46, 70 percent of voters said they favored requiring drug and alcohol testing of doctors and requiring that the California Medical Board suspend doctors who received positive tests for drugs or alcohol. Twenty-four percent of voters opposed.

In contrast, voters were split about increasing the cap on medical negligence lawsuits from $250,000 to $1 million. Forty-six percent of California voters opposed the proposal and 43 percent were in favor.

The latest USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times Poll, the largest statewide survey of registered voters, was conducted Sept. 2-8 and includes a significant oversample of Latino voters as well as one of the most robust cell phone samples in the state. The full sample of 1,507 registered voters has a margin of error of +/- 2.9 percentage points.

For the record

USC/Times poll: An article in the Sept. 13 LATExtra section about a USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll on Proposition 46 was based in part on a survey question that contained an error. The proposition would raise the state ceiling on damages for pain and suffering in malpractice lawsuits, require random drug and alcohol testing of physicians and require doctors, when prescribing medications, to consult a state database of patients' other prescriptions. The poll found that 61 percent of likely voters were in favor of the measure or leaning in that direction but that approval dropped when respondents were told of the proposition's potentially high costs to the state -- and declined further when they heard the main campaign arguments for and against the proposition. One of the poll questions summarized those arguments and then asked respondents how they would vote on the initiative in light of that information. Referring to one of the opposition arguments, the question said that Proposition 46 "establishes a massive new database filled with Californians' personal medical prescription information run by the government." That statement was in error. In fact, the database already exists, and the question should have reflected that. A spokesman for Consumer Attorneys of California, which supports Proposition 46, complained that the error likely skewed the poll results. The bipartisan team that conducted the survey -- Drew Lieberman of the Democratic firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research and Dave Kanevsky of the Republican company American Viewpoint -- said the results would likely not have been materially different if the question had been phrased correctly. "There are certainly instances when the difference of a few words in a question can create a very different response," the pollsters said in a statement. "But given the structure and length of this question, and considering it within the context of the results on five total Proposition 46 questions in this poll, it is our professional opinion that different phrasing is unlikely to have altered the results significantly."

In the wake of nationwide demonstrations over the use of force by police officers, a large majority of California voters said they have not been treated unfairly by law enforcement within the past year. But overall, state voters believe their fellow Americans have been mistreated by law enforcement, according to results from the latest USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times Poll.

Eighty-five percent of Californians said police had not treated them unfairly in the past year, as opposed to 14 percent who said they had been mistreated, according to the poll. Californians responded similarly when asked about members of their family (84-15) and friends and neighbors (76-20), the poll showed.

But nearly two-thirds of California voters said they believed fellow Americans had been mistreated by law enforcement in the past year, as opposed to 28 percent who said they had not, according to the poll.

"There's a fundamental difference between experiencing something unpleasant yourself, and hearing about it or reading about it secondhand," said Dan Schnur, director of the poll and executive director of the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics of USC. "When you read about something, it's a concern. When it happens to you or a family member, it's a crisis."

Voters, even minorities, still largely positive about police

California voters largely believe police are doing their jobs well, are willing to engage with local residents and treat residents of different ethnicities fairly, the poll showed.

Overall, 82 percent of voters said police in their cities had a tough job, and for the most part, did it well, as compared to 14 percent who said that was untrue. Seventy-six percent of voters also said police were willing to engage with local residents, as opposed to 16 percent who disagreed. More than half of voters, 58 percent, disagreed that their local police unfairly target minorities, as opposed to 31 percent who said minorities are unfairly targeted. Voters disagreed that police in their cities are ineffective and too slow to respond (26-66) or that police are too aggressive (18-77).

Among minority groups -- including black, Latino and Asian voters -- 72 percent agreed that police do their jobs well; 67 percent said police were willing to engage with locals; 43 percent thought police unfairly targeted minorities; 37 percent said police are ineffective and too slow to respond; and 28 percent said police are too aggressive.

"Overall, voters believe that the good that cops do outweighs a few bad apples. They still have faith in police and public safety officials," said David Kanevsky, vice president of Republican polling firm American Viewpoint, part of the bipartisan team with Democratic polling firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research that conducted the poll.

One-third of voters say police are tougher on blacks

When voters were asked whether they believed police were tougher on residents of different ethnic groups, 40 percent of California voters said police treat all groups the same way. One-third said police are tougher on blacks, 10 percent said police are tougher on Latinos and just 1 percent said police are tougher on whites.

Among minority voters -- blacks, Latinos and Asians -- 36 percent said police are tougher on blacks, 33 percent said police treat all groups the same way and 18 percent said police were tougher on Latinos. Among whites, 44 percent said police treat all groups the same; 33 percent said police were tougher on blacks; and 5 percent said police were tougher on Latinos.

"Whites are less likely to believe that there's a bias in the way that police treat different groups," said Drew Lieberman, vice president of Democratic polling firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner. "The commonality here is that there's a sense that African-Americans get the worst of it."

The latest USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times Poll, the largest statewide survey of registered voters, was conducted May 21-28 and includes a significant oversample of Latino voters as well as one of the most robust cell phone samples in the state. The survey was conducted Sept. 2-8 by Democratic polling firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner and Republican polling firm American Viewpoint. The full sample of 1,507 California voters has a margin of error of +/- 2.9 percentage points.

]]>
One-third of voters say police are tougher on blacks than any other groupGov. Brown holds large lead in governor’s race, USC Dornsife/LA Times Poll findshttps://news.usc.edu/68381/gov-brown-holds-large-lead-in-governors-race-usc-dornsifela-times-poll-finds/
https://news.usc.edu/68381/gov-brown-holds-large-lead-in-governors-race-usc-dornsifela-times-poll-finds/#respondFri, 12 Sep 2014 15:29:03 +0000USC Newshttps://news.usc.edu/?p=68381
In other results, an increasing majority of voters see the drought as a crisis and Californians support Proposition 1.
Gov. Jerry Brown maintains his lead over Republican challenger Neel Kashkari in the race for the state's highest office, according to the latest USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times Poll.

If the Nov. 4 general election were held today, Brown would defeat businessman Kashkari 57-32 percent. Brown has the support of 82 percent of Democrats, 59 percent of Decline to State voters and 18 percent of Republicans. Seventy-two percent of Republicans, 25 percent of Decline to State voters and 10 percent of Democrats support Kashkari.

Brown's approval numbers also remain strong at 57 percent, slightly higher than his 54 percent job approval rating in a May USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll, and a double-digit increase from his 44 percent approval rating in April 2011, soon after he took office. Brown's disapproval numbers remain unchanged from May at 32 percent.

Less recognition for Republican rival

When Californians were asked if they knew the name of the current governor of California, 78 percent of voters correctly identified Brown, with 20 percent unsure. Only 20 percent of voters identified Kashkari as the Republican candidate for governor, with 79 percent unsure of the candidate's name.

"Incumbents are defeated when the challenger gives the voters a compelling reason to make a change, and Kashkari simply hasn't been able to attract enough attention to make that case to voters," said Dan Schnur, director of the poll and executive director of the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics at USC. "California is an uphill challenge for any Republican running statewide. California is an uphill challenge for any underfunded candidate running statewide. But California is a very, very steep hill to climb for an underfunded Republican candidate running for statewide office."

Optimism for the state's future has more than doubled compared to data from a November 2010 poll, in which only 15 percent of voters reported the state was on the "right track" and 77 percent felt it was headed in the "wrong direction." Thirty-seven percent of Californians now say the Golden State is headed in the right direction, compared to 48 percent who disagree. Those numbers remain steady since the May poll, which found 46 percent of voters reporting the state was on the "wrong track" and 37 percent of voters feeling that the state was moving in the "right direction."

"Brown's popularity transcends voters' pessimism about the direction of the state," said Drew Lieberman, vice president of Democratic polling firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, part of the bipartisan team with Republican polling firm American Viewpoint that conducted the poll. "Both candidates have started to consolidate their bases, but if that happens at the same rate, Brown will benefit given that there are more Democrats in the electorate."

The California state legislature has a 43 percent disapproval rating and 38 percent approval, showing a slight increase from May when voters reported a 40 percent disapproval rating and a 41 percent approval.

Californians support Proposition 1

A majority of voters said they would support Proposition 1 -- which would authorize $7.12 billion in general obligation bonds for state water supply infrastructure projects -- when they were presented with the ballot language for the proposition. Sixty-six percent of voters said they would vote "yes" on the proposition if the election was held today. Nineteen percent they would vote "no."

However, support decreased to 57 percent versus 28 percent opposed when Californians were presented with additional information about Proposition 1. The statement they were read noted that the proposition would increase state bond repayment costs, as well as other state costs, but that it would also provide savings to water projects for local governments.

Increasing majority see drought as a crisis

The number of voters who see the drought in California as a crisis is on the rise, up 11 percentage points from a May poll. Half of the respondents agree with a description of the drought as a "crisis," 38 percent say it is "a major problem, but not a crisis," 7 percent said it is "a minor problem" and 2 percent say "it's not a problem at all."

Sixty percent of voters also report knowing of restrictions to limit water usage in their community, city or county -- a substantial rise from a May poll in which only 17 percent of voters reported water restrictions in their communities. Thirty-six percent of voters in the current poll say they are not aware of any such restrictions.

"That's a huge spike in the number of Californians who say they are facing water restrictions and that the drought has become a crisis," said David Kanevsky, vice president at Republican polling firm American Viewpoint. "The situation has become real, and that explains why Proposition 1 is doing as well as it is, even when you attach the price tags."

Californians are nearly split on whether they are willing to pay more for their water. When read a pair of statements, 48 percent of voters said that the statement "I would be willing to pay a higher water bill now to ensure a reliable, long-term water supply," came closer to their views. In comparison, 41 percent of voters identified more closely with the statement, "My water bill is high enough, and I would not be willing to pay more now in order to ensure a more reliable, long-term water supply."

When presented with proposed policies for addressing the drought and helping to conserve water in the state, Californians were most in favor of encouraging a voluntary 20 percent reduction in water use. Seventy-eight percent of voters supported the proposal and 19 percent opposed.

If the 20 percent water reduction was made mandatory, 51 percent of voters would be in favor and 44 percent opposed.

Other policy options fared worse. Increasing water rates to encourage conservation and decrease water use lost 51 to 44 percent; requiring farmers and the agriculture industry to reduce their water use lost 56 to 37 percent; and suspending environmental regulations that protect fish and wildlife was the least popular option, at 58 percent opposed versus 36 percent in favor.

Fifty percent of Californians reported that the drought has had a minor impact on them or their family on a daily basis, while 28 percent said it has had no impact at all. Twenty-two percent report that the drought has had a major impact in their daily lives, up from 16 percent who reported a major impact in May.

The latest USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times Poll, the largest statewide survey of registered voters, was conducted Sept. 2-8 and includes a significant oversample of Latino voters as well as one of the most robust cell phone samples in the state. The full sample of 1,507 registered voters has a margin of error of +/- 2.9 percentage points.

]]>
In other results, an increasing majority of voters see the drought as a crisis and Californians favor Proposition 1
Gov. Jerry Brown on the campaign trail (Photo/Bob Brigham) Mark Wyland joins Unruh Institute as legislator-in-residencehttps://news.usc.edu/68026/mark-wyland-joins-unruh-institute-as-legislator-in-residence/
https://news.usc.edu/68026/mark-wyland-joins-unruh-institute-as-legislator-in-residence/#respondFri, 05 Sep 2014 18:57:32 +0000USC Newshttps://news.usc.edu/?p=68026
The state senator will mentor students and offer analysis during upcoming political campaigns.
Outgoing California State Sen. Mark Wyland (R-Escondido) has joined the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics as a legislator-in-residence. He replaces former State Sen. Tony Strickland (R-Moorpark). Joining Visiting Fellow Anthony Portantino (D-Pasadena), a former state assemblyman in this role, Wyland will mentor students and provide political analysis during campus programs.

Wyland will join Portantino in providing expertise in discussions about politics and public policy in various events. In smaller mentoring groups, they will also teach students about various career paths in the political sphere.

"As someone who earlier in life was on the path to become a college professor, I am especially delighted by the opportunity to share my experiences with students at USC," Wyland said. "I am particularly impressed with the institute's programs that combine public policy with experience in elected office."

A 'thoughtful voice'

Widely known for his independent-minded, intellectual approach and passion for improving civic education in public schools, Wyland joins the Unruh Institute, housed at the USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences, with 14 years of experience in California politics.

"Mark Wyland has been one of the most respected and thoughtful voices in the California state legislature for many years, and we're thrilled that he's going to bring his experience and expertise to USC,” said Dan Schnur, executive director of the Unruh Institute.

"Our students will benefit tremendously from having him on campus, and we know he'll be a tremendous resource for them throughout his time here. Our bipartisan team of Mark Wyland and Anthony Portantino will be a huge asset, not just to the Unruh Institute but for the entire USC community."

An acknowledged leader in the California Legislature on education, government and fiscal reform, Wyland has authored significant legislation in these policy areas. He has served as vice chairman for many years on the Education Committee and several other committees.

From New York to Escondido

Wyland grew up in Southern California. After earning a B.A. in international relations from Pomona College, he was a Fulbright Scholar in Germany. He then became an international fellow at Columbia University, where he earned an M.A. in political science, winning the Einstein Award for writing the best thesis. After briefly working for the city of New York, where he analyzed education issues, he returned to California to run his family's lumber company as co-owner from 1974 until 2003.

Mark Wyland has been one of the most respected and thoughtful voices in the California state legislature for many years.

Dan Schnur

Prior to his election to the legislature, he served as a board member and president of the Escondido Union School District board from 1997 to 2000. In 2000, he was elected to the California State Assembly to represent the 74th Assembly District. In 2006, he won a seat on the California State Senate, representing the 38th Senate District. He was reelected in November 2010.

Wyland has been honored with numerous awards, including Legislator of the Year by Tech America, the leading national technology trade association, for his effort to create jobs and promote the high-tech industry.

Building on momentum

Portantino, who in addition to teaching a class in political science, will continue as a visiting fellow this year after joining the institute in 2013.

"I hope to share practical insights that encourage more talented and earnest young people to seek public service as a career path to bring positive change to our state and country," Portantino said.

"Last year, Sen. Tony Strickland and I had a terrific time bringing bipartisan case studies into the class "The Future of California," leading small and large group policy discussions and engaging in one-on-one mentorship. This year, Sen. Mark Wyland and I hope to continue these successful experiences and build upon last year's momentum."

Strickland joined the institute as a visiting fellow in fall 2013, leaving in late spring of this year to run for the United States Congress.

]]>
The state senator will mentor students and offer analysis during upcoming political campaignsCalifornia voters reject tenure, layoff rules for public school teachershttps://news.usc.edu/64633/california-voters-reject-tenure-layoff-rules-for-public-school-teachers/
https://news.usc.edu/64633/california-voters-reject-tenure-layoff-rules-for-public-school-teachers/#respondThu, 26 Jun 2014 17:24:26 +0000USC Newshttps://news.usc.edu/?p=64633
A new PACE/USC Rossier Poll also shows voters have soured on Common Core State Standards despite increased awareness.
A strong majority of California voters oppose the state's tenure and layoff policies for public school teachers, according to a new poll released just days after the landmark Vergara court case invalidated both statutes as unconstitutional.

Six in 10 California voters said teachers should not continue to receive tenure.

The PACE/USC Rossier School of Education Poll showed that two-thirds of voters (68 percent) agree that the state should do away with "Last In, First Out," a policy that requires the newest K-12 teachers be laid off first, regardless of merit. Just 17 percent said California should continue to conduct teacher layoffs in order of seniority, according to the poll. PACE stands for Policy Analysis for California Education.

California voters also largely opposed the state's tenure laws for public school teachers, according to the poll. Six in 10 California voters said teachers should not continue to receive tenure, as it makes firing bad teachers difficult. Twenty-five percent of voters said the state should keep tenure for public school teachers to provide them job protections and the freedom to teach potentially controversial topics without fear of reprisals.

When asked specifically about the timeline to tenure -- which can be awarded after as little as 18 months in the classroom -- 38 percent said two years is too soon to award tenure, and 35 percent said public school teachers shouldn't receive tenure at all, the poll showed. Seventeen percent of voters said two years was the "right amount of time" to earn tenure, and 4 percent said two years was too long, according to the poll.

"The majority of California voters polled have expressed views that are consistent with Judge [Rolf] Treu's recent decision in Vergara," said Julie Marsh, associate professor at USC Rossier. "These views may give pause to those appealing the decision."

On June 10, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Rolf Treu, presiding over Vergara v. California, struck down both teacher tenure and "Last In, First Out" laws, among others, on the grounds they deprive students of their right to an adequate education.

The PACE/USC Rossier Poll showed that 42 percent of voters had heard or read about the Vergara decision, with 58 percent saying they had not heard or read much or any at all about the decision.

Among those with knowledge of the decision, 62 percent said they agreed with the judge that teacher tenure rules violate the state constitution. Twenty-three percent disagreed and 15 percent said they didn't know.

When asked about California's teachers unions, 49 percent of voters said they have a "somewhat or very negative" impact on the quality of K-12 education, with 31 percent saying unions have a "somewhat or very positive" impact.

Voters more familiar with Common Core

Nearly half of voters -- 47 percent -- said they are familiar with Common Core State Standards. That's up from 2013 when the PACE/USC Rossier Poll showed just 29 percent of voters knew anything about Common Core.

But the most recent results of the poll showed that 44 percent of voters have a negative impression of the new standards, as compared to 38 percent who said they hold a positive impression.

When asked to choose between two statements, 41 percent of voters said California should not implement the Common Core State Standards because they represent a "Washington D.C.-based, one-size-fits-all approach" to education. Thirty-two percent of voters said California is right to implement the standards because they provide a "clear, consistent understanding of what students are expected to learn."

In the 2013 PACE/USC Rossier Poll, 36 percent of voters said California should adopt the Common Core, with 25 percent opposed to its "one-size-fits-all approach."

The most recent poll showed support for Common Core also varied widely by age and along party lines. Among Democrats, 46 percent had a positive impression, as compared to 34 percent who had a negative impression. Among Republicans, 56 percent of voters had a negative impression, and 30 percent had a positive impression.

Those aged 65 and older felt most negatively about the Common Core, with 51 percent having a negative impression of Common Core and 36 percent saying they have a positive impression.

"In a strongly Democratic state that has seen relatively few implementation issues, this points to a real messaging problem for advocates of the Common Core," said Morgan Polikoff, assistant professor of education at USC Rossier and an expert on Common Core curriculum.

State's public schools earn middling grades

The PACE/USC Rossier Poll also showed Californians continue to rate the state's education system as being in poor shape.

The largest percentage of Californians (38 percent) gave their state’s schools a grade of "C," and 43 percent of voters graded them a "D" or "F." Twenty-six percent of voters gave their local public schools a "D" or "F" rating.

Nearly half of the voters (48 percent) said the state's schools have gotten worse in recent years, while 33 percent said they stayed the same and 11 percent said they've gotten better. Asked about their local schools, however, 35 percent said they'd stayed the same, 34 percent said they'd gotten worse and 21 percent said they'd gotten better.

But Californians were more optimistic when asked to rank the state's public schools on specific measures of performance, on a scale of 0 (worst) to 10 (best).

Respondents gave the best mean score -- a 6.2 -- to the question of how the state's schools teach students the basics: reading, writing and math, up from a rating of 5.1 when the question was asked in 2013.

The next highest marks came for offering career-technical education as an alternative to a four-year university (5.9); preparing students for a four-year university (5.9); and providing parents with a choice of public schools (5.8). Rankings jumped in all categories over the 2013 results from the PACE/USC Rossier Poll.

"There is considerable evidence that public dispositions are more favorable toward public schools than they have been in the last couple of years," said David Plank, executive director of PACE. "The share of voters who say their local schools have gotten better has increased significantly, and their assessment of the schools' performance in specific areas has improved across the board."

When asked about the November election for state superintendent of public instruction, 27 percent said they would vote for incumbent Tom Torlakson, 16 percent chose charter school executive Marshall Tuck and 57 percent said they couldn't say.

After watching campaign ads for both candidates, however, 38 percent said they would vote for Torlakson and 36 percent would vote for Tuck.

"Right now, voters don't have much familiarity with either candidate, and the commercials shown in this poll go a long way in giving voters a look at who those guys are and what they are about," said Jeff Harrelson, a partner with Republican polling firm MFour Mobile Research, who conducted this poll with Democratic polling firm Tulchin Research. "This tells us that if both candidates are equally adept at getting their message to voters, this could be a very close race.”

The PACE/USC Rossier School of Education Poll was conducted June 19-22 by polling firms MFour Mobile Research and Tulchin Research and surveyed 1,005 registered California voters. The poll was conducted online and allowed respondents to complete the survey on a desktop or laptop computer, tablet or smartphone. The poll was conducted in English and Spanish. The margin of error for the overall sample was +/- 3.5 percentage points.

]]>
A new PACE/USC Rossier Poll also shows voters have soured on Common Core State Standards despite increased awareness
The poll showed that two-thirds of voters agree that California should do away with “Last In, First Out." (Photo/Thomas Favre-Bulle) Republicans in dead heat to challenge California governor, election poll findshttps://news.usc.edu/63504/republicans-in-dead-heat-to-challenge-california-governor-election-poll-finds/
https://news.usc.edu/63504/republicans-in-dead-heat-to-challenge-california-governor-election-poll-finds/#respondSun, 01 Jun 2014 16:01:04 +0000USC Newshttps://news.usc.edu/?p=63504
Survey shows that Gov. Jerry Brown maintains a wide lead over challengers.

According to results from a new USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times Poll, just days before the open primary election on June 3, Gov. Jerry Brown maintains a wide lead over two Republican challengers for the state's highest office.

Businessman Neel Kashkari has pulled into a statistical dead heat with California State Assemblyman Tim Donnelly to determine the opponent who will face Brown in the general election in November.

If the general election were held today, Brown would defeat Donnelly 54-26 and Kashkari 55-27, according to the results of the poll. Brown's support is buoyed by strong approval numbers and the lowest levels of pessimism about the state's future in the history of the poll.

The largest statewide survey of registered voters, this survey sampled 1,511 California voters from May 21-28 and includes a significant oversample of Latino voters as well as one of the most robust cell phone samples in the state.

Determining the Republicans’ ideological direction

In other state polls, Kashkari trailed Donnelly in the race to challenge Brown in November. But the latest USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times Poll indicates that recent advertising spending may have paid off for Kashkari, with the candidate pulling into a statistical tie with Donnelly. Among likely voters in the primary election, Democratic incumbent Brown has 50 percent of the vote, compared to 18 percent for Kashkari and 13 percent for Donnelly, with 10 percent of likely voters still undecided.

Thirty-two percent of likely Republican voters said they would vote for Kashkari in the primary election on June 3, compared to 21 percent for Donnelly and 17 percent for Brown. Twenty-three percent of Republican likely voters are still undecided.

Given that Brown has no opposition from the left, the battle in the primary is who will win the Republican vote.

David Kanevsky

“Establishment Republicans beat Tea Party candidates in Georgia, Kentucky, Idaho and Oregon last week. If the trend continues in California -- and there’s growing evidence it might -- we may be witnessing a national trend toward a more moderate national Republican Party. If the Tea Party candidate wins in California, the internal party struggles will continue and likely exacerbate,” said Mike Madrid, co-director of the USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times Poll, USC Unruh Institute of Politics fellow and Republican strategist. “With the Republican race in a statistical dead heat and with unprecedented levels of low voter turnout, a relatively small number of voters will be determining the ideological direction of the Republican party in California -- and perhaps the image of the GOP nationally.”

Solid Democratic support for Brown

Among Democratic likely primary voters, Brown gets 73 percent of the vote, with 6 percent for Donnelly and 3 percent for Kashkari. Among likely voters who indicated no party preference, 54 percent said they plan to vote for Brown in the primary election, 9 percent for Donnelly and 9 percent for Kashkari.

Eighty-three percent of voters who said they voted for Brown in 2010 plan to vote for him again, with 2 percent for Donnelly and 3 percent for Kashkari. Among voters who cast their ballot for Meg Whitman in 2010, 6 percent say they plan to vote for Brown, 30 percent for Donnelly and 41 percent for Kashkari.

No one is declaring victory on the economy, but voters are giving Brown credit for making progress.

Drew Lieberman

"Given that Brown has no opposition from the left, the battle in the primary is who will win the Republican vote. Right now, it is too close to call, but Kashkari appears to have the momentum and edge with key primary voting groups," said David Kanevsky, research director of Republican polling firm American Viewpoint, part of the bipartisan team with Democratic polling firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner that conducted the USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times Poll. "Whichever candidate advances to the general election, the race should tighten once the GOP nominee solidifies their base. The challenger needs everyone who voted against Brown in 2010. That won't be enough to win, but you need to walk before you can run."

Rising optimism for California’s future

Compared to 77 percent of voters who felt pessimistic about California's future when Brown was elected, fewer than half of voters -- 46 percent -- said the state is on the "wrong track" in the latest poll. And optimism about the state's future has more than doubled: In the latest USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times Poll, 37 percent of voters say the state is headed in the "right direction," compared to 15 percent in November 2010.

"No one is declaring victory on the economy, but voters are giving Brown credit for making progress," said Drew Lieberman, vice president of Democratic polling firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner. "There are strong quantitative signs that people think he's doing a good job and are willing to reelect him based on merits not just partisanship."

Fifty-four percent of voters overall approve of the job being done by Brown, a double-digit increase from his 44 percent approval rating in April 2011.

Fifty-four percent of voters overall approve of the job being done by Brown, a double-digit increase from his 44 percent approval rating in April 2011. Brown's disapproval numbers have remained virtually unchanged, with 32 percent disapproval in the latest poll, compared to 33 percent disapproval in April 2011.

"Gov. Brown is in a formidable position on the eve of the primary. Not only do a strong majority of California voters approve of the job he's doing, but those voters also give him solid marks on several issues facing the state, including crime and public safety, health care and the economy," said Rodriguez, co-director of the USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times Poll, Unruh Institute fellow and Democratic strategist.

On individual issues, voters gave Brown high ratings on crime and safety, with 50 percent approving of the job being done by the governor on this issue, and 35 percent disapproval. The governor received his second-highest approval rating on the economy and jobs, with 47 percent approval and 44 percent disapproval. On education, 45 percent of voters approved of the job being done by Brown and 43 percent disapproved. On health care, 46 percent approved and 38 percent disapproved. Voters gave Brown the lowest marks on prisons, with 30 percent approval and 46 percent disapproval.

The USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times Poll surveyed 1,511 registered voters from May 21-28, 2014. The full sample carries a margin-of-error of +/- 2.9 percentage points and the likely voter sample carries a margin-of-error of +/- 4.4 percentage points.

]]>
Survey shows that Gov. Jerry Brown maintains high approval ratings and wide lead over challengersUSC Dornsife/LA Times poll reveals public opinion about political corruptionhttps://news.usc.edu/63495/usc-dornsifela-times-poll-reveals-public-opinion-about-political-corruption/
https://news.usc.edu/63495/usc-dornsifela-times-poll-reveals-public-opinion-about-political-corruption/#respondSat, 31 May 2014 16:00:26 +0000USC Newshttps://news.usc.edu/?p=63495
Corruption in Sacramento is from a 'few bad apples,' not systemic breakdown, voters say.
In the wake of recent allegations against three California state senators for crimes such as bribery, conspiracy and money laundering, California voters say they are concerned about corruption in the state legislature -- but younger voters are less likely to be surprised by the allegation, according to results from the latest USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times Poll.

The poll, the largest statewide survey of registered voters, sampled 1,511 California voters from May 21-28, 2014, and includes a significant sample of Latino voters as well as one of the most robust cell phone samples in the state. The survey was conducted by Democratic polling firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner and Republican polling firm American Viewpoint, and has a margin of error of +/- 2.9 percentage points.

‘A few bad apples’

Altogether 84 percent of registered voters voiced alarm over corruption, with 51 percent "very concerned" and 32 percent "somewhat concerned." Fourteen percent of Californians reported they were "not concerned" by corruption in the state legislature.

However, Californians also reported that they did not view the entire system in Sacramento as corrupt. When queried about which statement was closer to their own view, 68 percent of voters felt that there are "a few bad apples in Sacramento who are corrupt." In comparison, 23 percent agreed with the statement "the entire system in Sacramento is corrupt," and 3 percent identified with the statement "there is no corruption in Sacramento."

Millennials were more likely to say they were 'not surprised' about corruption than seniors were.

Drew Lieberman

"While a significant number of Californians are concerned about corruption in the state legislature, voters are more likely to blame a select few rather than make a blanket judgment on their elected officials," said Matt Rodriguez, co-director of the poll, distinguished USC Unruh Institute of Politics fellow and Democratic strategist.

That feeling is steady across party lines: 76 percent of Democrats, 60 percent of Republicans and 65 percent of Decline to State voters felt that there are "a few bad apples" who are corrupt. In comparison, 34 percent of Republicans, 26 percent of Decline to State voters, and 13 percent of Democrats felt that the "entire system" is corrupt.

Millennials more likely to expect corruption

When asked how they felt about recent allegations of corruption by three state senators in Sacramento, 31 percent of voters said they were "not surprised," 22 percent reported that they were "angry," another 22 percent were "disappointed," and 14 percent were "frustrated."

Responses, however, differed across age groups. Thirty-five percent of voters under age 50 said they were "not surprised" -- with 37 percent of voters age 18-29 weighing in is as "not surprised" -- compared with 26 percent of voters over 50.

Californians do not believe that the legislature is plagued by a ‘culture of corruption,’ rather, recent events are the failings of individual legislators.

Michael Madrid

"Millennials were more likely to say they were 'not surprised' about corruption than seniors were," said Drew Lieberman, vice president of Democratic polling firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner. "Some of that may be general apathy toward politics, but you also have a Millennial generation that has lived their lives with politics defined through the lens of corruption and gridlock. They've never really seen anything else so it may be that we're generating an entire new generation of skepticism and political apathy based on this idea that we're just not going to be surprised when politics get caught up in bribery, etc."

Overhauling house rules

A vast majority of voters were on board with overhauling the California state legislature's ethics rules. Of the potential policies they were presented with:

90 percent of Californians favored expelling legislators who had been convicted of corruption or other crimes related to their position; 6 percent opposed.

While not corrupt, Californians do not believe the legislature is working for them.

Madrid

"In terms of reforms, voters look at these measures as an 'all of the above' solution,'" said David Kanevsky, research director of Republican polling firm American Viewpoint. "They support everything and intensity is strong. Part of that is because all of these reforms don't have any impact on the voters themselves. They all put limits on the politicians and interest groups so of course voters are saying yes."

The power of influence

Californians were queried about the various people and organizations that might wield the most influence over state legislators. Thirty-five percent of voters said that they feel legislators put the interests of special interest groups first; 22 percent said campaign contributors; 17 percent said their own interests come first for legislators; and 11 percent answered the people legislators represent come first.

“While corruption scandals have roiled the Capitol recently, Californians do not believe that the legislature is plagued by a ‘culture of corruption,’ rather, recent events are the failings of individual legislators," said Michael Madrid, co-director of the poll, distinguished Unruh Institute fellow and Republican strategist.

"However, Californians are of the strong opinion that the public's interests are lowest among the concerns of legislators -- in fact, they believe that special interests like big corporations and unions are first in the minds of legislators. While not corrupt, Californians do not believe the legislature is working for them,” Madrid said.

]]>
Corruption in Sacramento is from a 'few bad apples,' not systemic breakdown, voters saySupport for Brown climbs in the Golden Statehttps://news.usc.edu/57189/support-for-brown-climbs-in-the-golden-state/
https://news.usc.edu/57189/support-for-brown-climbs-in-the-golden-state/#respondMon, 11 Nov 2013 13:30:14 +0000USC Newshttps://news.usc.edu/?p=57189
Even at a time when Californians feel that the state is headed in the wrong direction, support for Gov. Brown is increasing, according to a USC Dornsife/LA Times Poll.
Even at a time when California voters feel that the state is headed in the wrong direction, support for Gov. Jerry Brown is increasing in the Golden State, according to results from the latest USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences/Los Angeles Times Poll.

Conducted from Oct. 30 to Nov. 5, the poll found that 55 percent of California voters approve of the job being done by Brown as governor -- his highest rating since he took office in 2011. Previous USC Dornsife/LA Times polls showed him with 49 percent approval (September 2012) and 50 percent approval (June 2013). In the latest poll, 33 percent of voters said they disapproved of the job being done by Brown.

Across party registration, Brown has the highest rating from Democrats with 78-11 percent approval. Decline-to-state voters approve of his performance by 55-28 percent, while Republicans disapprove of his performance by 68-22 percent.

When queried on the direction of the state, 49 percent of California voters said they felt things have gotten pretty seriously on the wrong track, while 37 percent said things in California are going in the right direction.

Seventy-nine percent of Republicans believe California is on the wrong track, while 11 percent say it's going in the right direction. Fifty percent of decline-to-state voters say the state is on the wrong track, while 36 percent say it is headed in the right direction. Democrats are more optimistic: 57 percent believe the state is going in the right direction, and 27 percent say it is on the wrong track.

White voters were more likely to rate the direction of the state as on the wrong track (54 percent), compared to 35 percent who say it is headed in the right direction. Similarly, 46 percent of Latinos see the state as headed on the wrong track; 34 percent rate California as headed in the right direction. Meanwhile, 48 percent of black voters and 48 percent of Asian-American voters see the state as headed in the right direction, with 31 percent and 37 percent, respectively, who feel it's on the wrong track.

"It's impressive that Brown's approval has increased at a time when perception of politicians are generally at historic lows," said Drew Lieberman, vice president of Democratic polling firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, part of the bipartisan team with Republican polling firm American Viewpoint that conducted the poll.

"The government shutdown tends to reflect on all politicians at all levels, but I think Gov. Brown has built some insulation from that. This data shows Brown with a strong foundation and a solid core, but also with some work left to do," he added.

When voters were queried on whether or not they would re-elect Brown as governor of California in 2014, 32 percent said they would select Brown again for the job and 37 percent of voters said they would elect someone else.

In a further breakdown, 17 percent of voters said they would "definitely" re-elect Brown and 15 percent said they would "probably" re-elect him. In comparison, 27 percent of voters said they would "definitely" vote for someone else and 10 percent said they would "probably" vote for someone else. Twenty percent said their vote would depend on the gubernatorial challenger, and 10 percent were undecided.

"Jerry Brown has made less effort to establish a public media presence in California than any governor in almost a quarter of a century," said Dan Schnur, director of the poll and director of the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics at USC. "The result of that relatively low profile is that voters don't leap to directly associate him with either specific public policy challenges or their broader concerns about the state.

"A Democratic governor in a Democratic state who hasn't shut down the government or messed up Obamacare roll out is good enough."

"When you compare Brown's approval on specific issues, it's really unique to California and it's really driven more by California's ideological leanings," said David Kanevsky, research director of American Viewpoint.

"Brown is negative on pocket book issues, such as the economy, jobs and taxes, but he's strong on social and cultural issues, such as the environment, energy and immigration," he continued. "What's keeping Brown afloat is the Democratic leanings in the state, specifically on issues that Democrats are really energized about like the environment and immigration."

According to the poll, voters were most likely to attribute improvements in the state economy to national and international economic forces outside of anyone's control (41 percent). Twenty-seven percent credited the legislature for coming together and working more efficiently, while 19 percent said it was a result of Brown's policies.

Conversely, when asked what they felt was most responsible for the California economy not getting better, voters cited dysfunction in the state legislature as the top reason (46 percent). Twenty-nine percent said economic forces outside of anyone's control were to blame, and 15 percent credited Brown's policies.

When read a pair of statements about Brown and the economy, voters were more likely to agree with the idea that the governor has laid the foundation for California's economy to get back on track.

Forty-nine percent of Californians said they agreed more closely with the statement: "Brown cut billions in spending and made major reforms to state government. Now California could have a budget surplus for the first time in years, and we can get back to helping businesses grow and create jobs in local schools to create a stronger California."

The second statement, which 42 percent of Californians agreed more closely with, read: "Gov. Brown has had three years to solve California's economic problems, but we're still no better off than we were. He's raised taxes to pay for government programs and his economic policies are preventing businesses from creating jobs. Brown has been more of the same in Sacramento, and we need a new direction to get the California's economy back on track."

Altogether, 32 percent of voters "strongly" agreed that Brown has created a strong economic foundation in the state, and 17 percent "not so strongly" agreed. In comparison, 32 percent said they "strongly" believe California needs a new direction, and 10 percent said they "not so strongly" agreed.

Overall, 50 percent of voters said they were hopeful about Brown and are still hopeful; 27 percent said they were never hopeful about Brown; and 17 percent said they were hopeful but have been disappointed by the governor.

When it comes to the state's economy, 47 percent of Californians believe that it has already bottomed out and is starting to improve. Conversely, 27 percent said the economy has not yet bottomed out and has gotten worse, while 23 percent said it has reached the bottom and is not yet improving.